2022 (8) TMI 665 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses challenge to online filing rejection under Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010, stresses adherence to procedure.

Kanchan Oil Industries Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's application to file its return online under the Industrial Promotional ... Applicability of time limitation - Rejection of petitioner’s application for allowing it to file its return on-line, for incentive in question, relating to 4th quarter up to 31st October, 2012 - present petition is filed in February, 2019 against such grievance - It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 has not considered the reasons cited by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application and has arbitrarily exercised its discretion under Clause 4 of the Scheme in order to reject the application as non-deserving without considering the explanation of the petitioner - principles of natural justice. HELD THAT:- Claim of the petitioner for benefit of the incentive in question under the Industrial Promotion Scheme, 2010 relating to quarter ending June 30th, 2012 against which this Writ Petition was filed in 2019 was denied admittedly for the non-fulfilment or failure on the part of the petitioner in filing such claim as per norms of the incentive scheme in question by which it had to file the same online within specified time by taking the alleged ground of technical glitches in its internet system which could not be substantiated by the petitioner by any material evidence and whether there was any glitches in the internet connection of the petitioner or not at the relevant point of time in 2012 is a question of fact and matter of evidence and it could not be gone into by the Writ Court in exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, moreso in absence of any material evidence by the petitioner in this regard. Petitioner in this Writ Petition failed to make out any case that any provision of law has been contravened by the respondent authority concerned in passing the impugned order of rejecting the claim of the petitioner or that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is contrary to law or is without jurisdiction or is in violation of principle of natural justice or there is any perversity or there is any discrimination against the petitioner by the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s claim of incentive benefits in question. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Challenge to rejection of application for filing return online under Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010.2. Consideration of reasons for delay in filing application.3. Interpretation of procedural law and substantive rights.4. Withholding of financial assistance by the authority.5. Discretion of the Government to extend time for filing returns.6. Strict interpretation of beneficial legislation.7. Discrimination and waiver of conditions under the scheme.Issue 1:The primary issue in the writ petition was the challenge to the rejection of the petitioner's application for allowing it to file its return online under the Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010. The petitioner argued that the authority had arbitrarily rejected the application for the Quarter Ending June, 2012, solely because it had not been filed online.Issue 2:The petitioner contended that it had informed the concerned authority of technical glitches preventing online filing and had requested to file the application either manually or electronically. Despite explanations and requests for condonation of the delay, the authority rejected the application without considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay.Issue 3:Regarding the interpretation of procedural law and substantive rights, the petitioner argued that the time limit for filing the application was procedural and should not result in denying substantive benefits under the scheme. The petitioner claimed eligibility for the scheme's benefits, having maintained proper documentation and received financial assistance previously.Issue 4:The petitioner further argued that the authority had arbitrarily withheld financial assistance amounting to Rs. 37,37,827 without valid reasons, which the petitioner was entitled to receive under the scheme.Issue 5:The respondents, on the other hand, asserted that the petitioner had failed to file the return within the specified time despite having extra time and opportunities to do so. They contended that the government had discretion to extend the time for filing returns, and the petitioner's failure to comply with the electronic filing requirement could not be justified.Issue 6:The respondents emphasized the need for strict interpretation of beneficial legislation and the importance of adhering to the specified procedures. They argued that the conditions of the scheme must be strictly followed, and any failure to comply should not result in granting benefits as a matter of right.Issue 7:Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of technical glitches or valid reasons for the delay in filing the application. The court held that altering the terms and conditions of the scheme in favor of the petitioner would set a precedent for similar cases and lead to a floodgate of litigations. The court found no contravention of law or discrimination in rejecting the petitioner's claim for incentive benefits.